message marked as off topic

[Martin R]

I asked a question at https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38219 which was promptly labelled off topic, so I suppose I should ask it here:

The preceding message on the pull request was:

    I have removed the improper use of the "disputed" label.

My question (and comment) was:

    Why is the use "improper"? Apart from that, it seems to me that removing the disputed label should only be possible with consensus.

My new question is:

   Why is my question labelled "off topic"?  Where should labelling issues be discussed.

I am rather puzzled and quite a bit worried.  I find it hard to deal with this kind of culture of conversation.

Martin

[Kwankyu Lee]

According to the preliminary discussion on "disputed PRs" (https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/XDvKkMRoDk4):

a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone may mark a PR as disputed.

Now I guess that you may answer to your own questions.

[Martin R]

Sorry, I don't understand.  I was asking on the PR why the disputed label was *removed*, not added.  And I do not understand, why my question was marked as "off topic".

Martin

[Dima Pasechnik]

I marked #38219 as disputed as it has cannibalised my earlier proposal without any reference.

Dima

[Matthias Koeppe]

I marked Martin's message as off-topic because PR discussions are not a place for discussions about procedure.

[Martin R]

I must say that I find this response intolerable.

I cannot quit, because I have duties, but I am really pissed off.

Martin

[Kwankyu Lee]

I cannot quit, because I have duties, but I am really pissed off.

You are not alone. Everyone here was offended in his own way.

[John H Palmieri]

In my opinion, the decision to hide a comment should not be made by a single person. I might even suggest that the authority to make such a decision should lie solely with the Sage Code of Conduct Committee. (I am a member of that committee, but I am expressing my own views here, not those of the committee.)

[Martin R]

Concerning technology: I was not notified by github that my comment was marked off topic.

Concerning collaboration: I think that no matter who (e.g. a single person or the community angels) marks a comment as off topic, or removes or adds a disputed label, or modifies the description of a pull request in a similar way, should first contact the concerned person to clear any misconceptions, and, if there is no consensus, give (privately) a reason for the action.

Martin

[Kwankyu Lee]

These actions on our github site:

A1 marking a comment as off topic on a PR

A2 blocking someone from a PR

A3 blocking someone totally from the github project (that is, expelling someone from our project)

A4 modifying a comment by someone else (including modifying the PR description)

A5 using part of code from a PR in another PR (without consent)

A6 manipulating PR labels out of the intended usage

can (or surely do) offend the involved person. I think CoC committee should discuss on these actions and give guidelines on when an action is allowed when not by whom.

[Georgi Guninski]

> A4 modifying a comment by someone else (including modifying the PR description)

This abuse of moderation sucks much.
Is it legal a mod loser to modify my writing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[John H Palmieri]

Hi Kwankyu,

(This is a response from the Code of Conduct Committee.)

Thank you for raising these issues. Some are addressed below, and we will also create separate threads (for discussion of policy proposals) to deal with some of the others.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 3:54:30 PM UTC-7 Kwankyu Lee wrote:

These actions on our github site:

A1 marking a comment as off topic on a PR

Will be addressed in a separate thread

 

A2 blocking someone from a PR

This is not possible on GitHub, although we will create a separate thread about GitHub blocking in general.

 

A3 blocking someone totally from the github project (that is, expelling someone from our project)

This is solely the responsibility of the Code of Conduct Committee.

 

A4 modifying a comment by someone else (including modifying the PR description)

Separate thread

 

A5 using part of code from a PR in another PR (without consent)

Handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

A6 manipulating PR labels out of the intended usage

We have a policy for how to handle the "disputed" label: I'm going from memory, but I think that a disputed label can only be removed (a) by the person who initially applied the label, (b) a vote on the ticket with the necessary outcome, or (c) a discussion and vote on sage-devel. If people are not following the policy, then please bring it to the attention of the Code of Conduct Committee. Do you have other questions or concerns about labels?

Regards,

  John

[Kwankyu Lee]

Thank you for consideration.

 

A6 manipulating PR labels out of the intended usage

We have a policy for how to handle the "disputed" label: I'm going from memory, but I think that a disputed label can only be removed (a) by the person who initially applied the label, (b) a vote on the ticket with the necessary outcome, or (c) a discussion and vote on sage-devel. If people are not following the policy, then please bring it to the attention of the Code of Conduct Committee. Do you have other questions or concerns about labels?

The last case I observed is a disputed label added by someone and disapproved by the author. The rule

a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone may mark a PR as disputed.

implies that "disputed" label is only for a PR that has positive review from a reviewer but another still objects it. I think adding "disputed" label prematurely is not appropriate. Then who can remove the "disputed" label in this case?

 

[julian...@fsfe.org]

implies that "disputed" label is only for a PR that has positive review from a reviewer but another still objects it. I think adding "disputed" label prematurely is not appropriate. Then who can remove the "disputed" label in this case?

That's not how I interpret the policy we have. I think the idea is to first use the "needs whatever" labels and when no agreement can be reached, then "disputed" can be set. If we had to wait for a "positive review", then there would be a race condition of sorts: You'd have to be fast so the release manager does not pick the PR up while the positive review label is set.

julian

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 8:56:15 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:

implies that "disputed" label is only for a PR that has positive review from a reviewer but another still objects it. I think adding "disputed" label prematurely is not appropriate. Then who can remove the "disputed" label in this case?

That's not how I interpret the policy we have. I think the idea is to first use the "needs whatever" labels and when no agreement can be reached, then "disputed" can be set.

Julian, that contradicts the entirety of the past practice that you carried out on behalf of the committee when you removed lots of "disputed" labels earlier this year.

[Matthias Koeppe]

I'll note that trying to enumerate things that someone might be offended by is a well-meaning but ultimately futile approach because that list will never be complete.

More importantly, a discussion of governance cannot start with the consideration of what actions people may be "offended" by. 

Doing so simply gives undue influence to participants who volunteer their emotional state to an audience. 

Instead, the leadership of the project needs to advise participants that our projects' forums are a professional venue, and therefore proper restraint in interactions is necessary.

[Kwankyu Lee]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2024 at 12:56:15 AM UTC+9 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:

implies that "disputed" label is only for a PR that has positive review from a reviewer but another still objects it. I think adding "disputed" label prematurely is not appropriate. Then who can remove the "disputed" label in this case?

That's not how I interpret the policy we have. I think the idea is to first use the "needs whatever" labels and when no agreement can be reached, then "disputed" can be set. If we had to wait for a "positive review", then there would be a race condition of sorts: You'd have to be fast so the release manager does not pick the PR up while the positive review label is set.

OK. That concern is reasonable. Then at least there should be explicit issues (expressed in comments) on which the author and the negative reviewer disagrees before "disputed" label is added.  

 

[Dima Pasechnik]

This doesn't work well with blocked GitHub users allowed for some reason in our project - one cannot directly comment on, or review, PRs whose authors block other users. Such users can still change labels,
to indicate disagreement.

Dima



>
>
>
>

[Kwankyu Lee]

On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 6:09:36 PM UTC+9 dim...@gmail.com wrote:

This doesn't work well with blocked GitHub users allowed for some reason in our project - one cannot directly comment on, or review, PRs whose authors block other users. Such users can still change labels,
to indicate disagreement.

As we are discussing related issues, let us be clear about your case. I am asking the CoC committee:

1. Should Matthias stop blocking Dima from his PRs?

2. If Dima is kept in the blocked state,  does he have rights to participate in the reviewing process of the PRs?

Sorry for more questions, but answers to these questions are necessary for proper handling of https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38219.

[Martin R]

Please note that Dima is possibly not the only person affected.  Matthias said that he blocked me, too: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/38219#issuecomment-2288038077.

In https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/XDvKkMRoDk4/m/dLm8DH6ZAAAJ the code of conduct committee stated, that blocking may be appropriate in certain cases, such a harassment or stalking, although it is harming the sage project.

I am not aware of any harassment or stalking I would have done, and I was not given a reason.  If this is not resolved, I will try to leave the project as soon as I have finished my duties.

In fact, I find it quite hard to digest that work continues on these tickets as if nothing had happened, resulting in github hiding them eventually.

Martin

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 7:26:38 AM UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:

I find it quite hard to digest that work continues on these tickets as if nothing had happened, resulting in github hiding them eventually.

Nothing of relevance for the review of the ticket has happened.

And that's exactly the point of hiding off-topic comments as off-topic.

[Dima Pasechnik]

I have added "disputed" label there as I disagree with the metadata of the PR in question, not the least because it uses my idea without giving a due credit.

Given that PR author blocks me on GitHub, I take this as a further personal attack, which should stop at once.
First a developer blocks someone, then the developer steals their ideas, is this a kind of behaviour we should tolerate?

Dima

[Dima Pasechnik]

Taking ideas for a PR from another project contributor without a proper credit, and continuing to refuse to give  a proper credit, ought to result in a disciplinary action.

All the way up to a permanent expulsion from the project.

Dima

[Matthias Koeppe]

On Friday, August 23, 2024 at 7:26:38 AM UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:

If this is not resolved, I will try to leave the project as soon as I have finished my duties.

I'll note that "threatening to leave" is an inappropriate manipulation, in particular when done repeatedly. 

Previously seen in the 2024-03 sage-devel thread "Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes"

https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Xf6dbPLmKPY/m/nDNR6Y8RAQAJ

[Dima Pasechnik]

I don't see how a comment related to the review procedure can be off-topic.